03843-24 Montford v The Times

Summary of Complaint

1. Andrew Montford complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Beating climate change is a long-term investment and the outlook is sunny”, published on 4 April 2024.

2. The article, which appeared on page 37 under the title “Comment”, reported the opinions of its writer on climate correction. It identified the article’s writer as the “CEO of BP and […] the founder and chairman of BeyondNetZero”. The article said that the writer was “more optimistic than ever about the potential of science and engineering to solve this urgent global challenge”. It went on to say that “the key [wa]s to construct a global financing ecosystem that creates these flows of investment” and that this would “necessarily come at a cost, with short-term trade-offs and tough choices” but that it was “an opportunity we cannot afford to pass up if we want to ensure that breakthroughs in science and engineering continue to drive climate correction”. It also added that “the good news [wa]s that in the past decade solar electricity costs have fallen 80 per cent and wind power costs by 60 per cent”.

3. The article also appeared online, in substantially the same format.

4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1, as it reported that “wind power costs [had fallen] by 60 per cent” in the past decade. He said that the production cost (the “levelised cost”) of offshore wind had fallen over the last decade but not as much as 60%, as suggested by the article. The complainant said that the average levelised cost reduction for windfarms was 27%, as the average cost for windfarms commissioned prior to 2021 was £105/MWh while the average cost for windfarms commissioned prior to 2012 was £142/MWh. The complainant provided several scientific articles which he said supported this position, one of which an article was authored by the complainant, titled: “Offshore Wind Cost Predictions and Cost Outcomes”. This article stated that “the cost of offshore wind in the UK has not come down sign[i]ficantly, and that we should expect only incremental changes in future”; it also said that “[t]he LCOE [Levelised Cost of Energy] of most UK offshore windfarms remain in the range £125–150/MWh”.

5. In relation to the cost of solar cells the complainant said the article inaccurately reported that “in the past decade solar electricity costs have fallen 80 per cent”. He noted that there was limited data in the field but that the available data suggested that the levelised cost had fallen by about 30% - as it had fallen from £110/MWh to £80/MWh – rather than 80% as referred to within the article. The complainant believed the article was instead referring to the reduction in the cost of the solar modules – these counted for only 25% of the production cost of electricity from a solar farm – rather than the “electricity costs” which had fallen in price by around 80%. The complainant provided a graph – which did not include a source - which displayed a flat line slightly above £100/MWh for the years 2016 – 2023 as the average amounts paid for solar PV cells in the UK.

6. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It stated that the article was clearly a comment piece, which reported the view of its author, a reputable and well-known figure in the energy field. It also said that the article’s figures were based on information from reputable sources, and that – while it may be possible to find different data – the publication, and the article’s author, was entitled to rely on data it had itself sourced. It said that, while the complainant may disagree with the conclusions the article had made, they had been based on data from reputable sources and there could be no accusation that there had been a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article.

7. In regard to the disputed statement that solar electricity costs had fallen 80%, it stated that the figure reflected not just the declining cost of producing solar cells at scale, but also the increase in the efficiency of solar panels. It stated that the reported figures for solar and figure wind power costs were also both supported by an International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) report, published in 2022. It supplied IPSO with the report. The report’s summary stated: “The period 2010 to 2021 has witnessed a seismic improvement in the competitiveness of renewables. The global weighted average LCOE of newly commissioned utility-scale solar PV projects declined by 88% between 2010 and 2021, whilst that of onshore wind fell by 68%, CSP (concentrating solar-thermal power technology) by 68% and offshore wind by 60%”.

8. The complainant did not consider the evidence relied on by the publication to support its position to be accurate as the findings of the IRENA study had never been reproduced nor peer-reviewed. He noted that the findings of one of the scientific articles he had provided as evidence had been reproduced on more than one occasion. He also noted that interest rates had risen since the study had been conducted, and the article did not take this into account.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Findings of the Committee

9. When considering whether the article had inaccurately reported that “in the past decade solar electricity costs have fallen 80 per cent and wind power costs by 60 per cent”, the Committee noted its role was to decide whether the Editors’ Code had been breached by the publication, rather than to make a finding on any potential methodological issues within the studies provided by the publication to support its position.

10. The Committee took into account the evidence supplied by both the publication and the complainant to support their positions. The complainant was concerned that the findings had not been replicated elsewhere and had not been peer-reviewed. The Committee acknowledged that both parties accepted that the average levelised costs were declining but disputed the magnitude of the decline. In these circumstances, and where Clause 1 does not oblige publications to only rely on peer-reviewed sources in their reporting, the Committee did not consider that the use of a different dataset to that of the complainant rendered the article inaccurate or misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

11. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 23/05/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/09/2024